Little Country Lost is no longer maintained; you can view the author's latest work at www.congressionaldish.com. Congressional Dish is a weekly podcast pointing out the corporate influence in the bills passed by Congress.

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Benazir Bhutto: Omar Sheikh Murdered Osama bin-Laden

In a November 2, 2007 interview, less than two months before she would be assassinated, Benazir Bhutto was asked by reporter David Frost of Al-Jazeera English about a letter that she had sent to Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf. The letter outlined who she believed should be investigated in the event of her assassination. While giving her answer, she listed as one of the suspects a "key figure in security... a former military officer in Pakistan" who had dealings with, among others, "Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered Osama bin-Laden."

Jump to 1:37 to hear this portion of the interview:(I should probably tell you that this is not the original video I posted. That one is "no longer available". Since I have this sneaky feeling that this is not the last time this post's video will somehow become unavailable, please let me know if it doesn't work and I'll refresh it.)

If that name, Omar Shieikh, sounds familiar it's because he was a key figure in some huge stories between 1999 and 2002. His full name is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, and multiple variations of those names are used to describe him including Omar Sheikh and Saeed Sheikh. Here's how you may have heard of him:

In 1999, Indian Airlines flight 814 was hijacked by Pakistani nationals. In return for the hostages, the hijackers demanded India release the leaders of the ISI (the Pakistani version of the CIA) funded group Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. One of these leaders was Omar Sheikh.

In the months before 9/11, using the alias "Mustafa Mohammad Ahmed", Omar Sheikh transferred at least $100,000 to Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers.

Omar Sheikh was sentenced to death in 2002 for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

Having trouble wrapping your head around this? I was too, so I did a little research. First, let's see if this revelation that Omar Sheikh murdered Osama bin-Laden is even possible. I guess the first question would be 'Is Osama bin-Laden dead'?

There are a few reports from around the world that I found that indicated that Osama bin-Laden had died. One report from a French newspaper said that Osama bin-Laden died on August 23, 2006 of typhoid fever. However, if Benazir Bhutto is to be taken at her word, this report cannot be true because Omar Sheikh has been in Pakistani police custody since February 2002 for the murder of Daniel Pearl.

However, some other reports, which seem to make some sense, indicated that Osama bin-Laden died in December 2001. An Egyptian newspaper called al-Wafd published the following article (Volume 15 No 4633) on December 26th, 2001:

A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.

If the funeral took place 10 days before this article was published in al-Wafd and The Observer of Pakistan, this would put the death of Osama bin-Laden around the 16th or 17th of December 2001. Israeli intelligence officials also told reporters in October 2002 that they and United States officials believe that Osama bin-Laden had been killed in December 2001.

If you look at a timeline of events involving Osama bin-Laden, ignoring the questionable videotapes, there is a noticeable shift in the type of communication Osama bin-Laden has with the world and the rhetoric used by Bush Administration and Pakistani officials in regards to the threat Osama bin-Laden poses starting in the middle of December 2001. Some highlights:September 15, 2001 – President Bush says of bin-Laden, “If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.”

September 17, 2001 – President Bush says, “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’”

January 27, 2002 - Vice President Dick Cheney says that Osama bin-Laden "isn't that big of a threat. Bin Laden connected to this worldwide organization of terror is a threat."

January 27, 2002 – White House Chief of Staff Andy Card tells CNN, “"I do not know for a fact that he's alive. I happen to believe he's probably alive… Our overall objective is to defeat terrorism, wherever it is around the world. And so, our objective is not to get Osama bin Laden."

January 29, 2002 – President Bush delivers his first State of the Union address since 9/11. While he labels Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the “axis of evil”, he fails to mention Osama bin-Laden at all.

March 13, 2002 – President Bush says, “Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all… He’s a person who’s now been marginalized.… I just don’t spend that much time on him.… I truly am not that concerned about him.”

April 4, 2002 - Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers says, "The goal has never been to get bin-Laden"

October 16, 2002 – Middle East Newsline reports that Israeli Intelligence officials confirmed that Israel and the United States believe Osama bin-Laden was killed in mid-December 2001 during the Tora Bora bombing campaign.

This timeline, with Osama bin-Laden's death allegedly occurring in the middle of December 2001, makes it possible that Omar Sheikh could have committed the murder. From October 2001 through January 19, 2002, Omar Sheikh was living openly in his home in Lahore, Pakistan. His positions as leader of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (a Taliban and Osama bin-Laden partner) and ISI agent (the source of funds for Harkat-ul-Mujahideen) would also have given him means for access to Osama bin-Laden.

While it is disturbing that Benazir Bhutto may have revealed that our government has been (and continues to be) lying to us about Osama The Big Bad Wolf, the revelation that his supposed killer was Omar Sheikh raises even more questions than the obvious 'Who the hell is making and releasing all those Osama bin-Laden videos and for what purpose?'.

Here are some interesting facts:

Daniel Pearl was investigating, among other things, connections between the Pakistani ISI and terrorist groups when he was kidnapped and killed.

On February 5, 2002, before Daniel Pearl's body was found, Omar Sheikh turned himself in to ISI officials. ISI kept Omar Sheikh (one of their agents) in custody for a week before turning him over to Pakistani police. What happened during that week is unknown as Omar Sheikh wouldn't discuss the details fearing his family will be killed.

The trial of Omar Sheikh in Pakistan, the result of which was a death sentence, was held entirely in secret and with questionable evidence. According to The Guardian, both US officials and Marianne Pearl (Daniel Pearl's wife) have concluded that Omar Sheikh is not guilty.

Before Omar Sheikh's trial had concluded, Pervez Musharraf publicly declared that he wanted the trial to result in a death sentence, leading many to believe he effectively ordered the courts to render that verdict.

As of today, Omar Sheikh has not been executed. He has been held by the Pakistanis for years awaiting his appeal which has been delayed 32 times.

Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales told Marianne Pearl (Daniel Pearl's wife) that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad confessed to the murder of Daniel Pearl. Daniel Pearl's family and former CIA investigators doubt that the confession, received only after Mohammad was tortured, is true.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is the so-called "9/11 mastermind" whose identity was supposedly provided by the interrogations of Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The tapes of these interrogations were the ones famously destroyed by the CIA in 2005.

On October 7, 2001 General Mahmood Ahmad was replaced as the head of the ISI at the request of the United States due to numerous reports that he had ordered Omar Sheikh to transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta before 9/11.

ISI director General Mahmood Ahmad was in the United States during 9/11. In the days preceding the attacks, he met with CIA director George Tenet and US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Mark Grossman. During the attacks, we was meeting with Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss (who will take over as CIA director after George Tenet leaves). After the attacks, Graham and Goss will co-head the House-Senate investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

The previous time the director of the ISI, Ziauddin Butt, came to the United States was a few days before Pervez Musharraf took over control of Pakistan in a 1999 military coup.

Benazir Bhutto said that a "key figure in security" (ISI?) would be on the list of people who would want her dead.

The ISI has been in existence since the 1980's due to the financing of the CIA and according to The Guardian"it has long been established that the ISI has acted as go-between in intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA."

I don't really know what to make of these facts and don't even know if all of them are relevant. But I do have some questions:

Is it possible that Daniel Pearl had found out that Osama bin-Laden had been killed during the course of his investigation, leading him to be kidnapped one month after the alleged murder?

If Omar Sheikh did kill Osama bin-Laden, could that explain why he was falsely accused and convicted of the murder of Daniel Pearl? To shut him up? Is he still alive, as believed, because of his ties to Pakistan's ISI?

(The uncomfortable question) How much do CIA and Bush Administration officials know about the murder of Daniel Pearl? Did they have an interest in the silence of both Daniel Pearl and Omar Sheikh? Why hasn't the Bush Administration demanded that Pervez Musharraf allow the United States to question Omar Sheikh, since he is still alive and in their custody?

How deep and how sinister is the alliance of the Bush government and the Musharraf government? How interconnected are the ISI and CIA and could the ISI assist Osama bin-Laden, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and the Taliban without the knowledge of the CIA?

Why does the Bush Administration want us to think Osama bin-Laden is still alive? How do they personally benefit from this deception more than they would benefit by publicly taking credit for catching Osama bin-Laden?

I understand that Benazir Bhutto's statement is uncorroborated and could very well not be true. However, she was the Prime Minister of Pakistan twice and is no doubt privy to more information than any reporter, especially reporters working for the American press. Also, it's her word against those of the Bush Administration, the CIA, Pervez Musharraf's government, and the American and British mainstream press. Who is more deserving of our trust?

If only she had not been assassinated. We could have asked her ourselves...

While I'm irritated by the narrator of this video, who uses the word "obviously" far too many times when explaining his far from "obvious" opinion, he does present some interesting evidence that Benazir Bhutto may have mis-spoken, as she is quoted talking about the need to find Osama bin-Laden before and after the David Frost interview. The relevant portion starts at 2:14 in the video.

79 comments:

That is all pretty interesting. I was kind of confused by Bhutto saying Bin-Laden was killed. That helps explain a lot.

Why does the Bush Administration want us to think Osama bin-Laden is still alive? How do they personally benefit from this deception more than they would benefit by publicly taking credit for catching Osama bin-Laden?

I think that is all part of the fear mongering to help Bush find a way to stay in power or at least help a Republican get elected president in Nov.

That's what I thought at first too, but then I thought about December 2001. If Bush had come out and said, "Osama bin-Laden has been killed!" and took credit for it, he would have been a hero. We would have trusted him to do whatever he wanted because he caught the big-bad-wolf so quickly and effectively. Telling us Osama bin-Laden is dead in December 2001 wouldn't have stopped him from lying us into Iraq. He could have said that Osama bin-Laden's last words were that Saddam Hussein made him do 9/11... or some other similar lie. There were plenty of ways to keep us scared.

However, I'm not really sure what other reason there could be for all the videos and for wanting us to think Osama bin-Laden is alive. The reason you suggest surely makes plenty of sense. I'm just curious if there is actually a more specific plan they have, that we are missing, that this information might clue us into.

I read on another blog today (and I have not done any research on this yet, so take it for what it is) that there are rumors that Bhutto used to be buddy-buddy with the CIA but had recently "gone bad". One of the ways she could be doing so is by subtly releasing insider information that she knows would cripple the Bush Administration and the Musharraf government if it were widely known.

The way the dots seem to create a dirty web connecting the CIA-ISI-Osama bin Laden-Omar Sheik-9/11-Musharraf-Bush. It paints a dirty picture.

If Bhutto was trying to expose these bastards, this is a pretty good way to go about it. If we got more dots that made the picture clearer, and were able to widely distribute that picture, I think both the Bush Administration and the Musharraf government would find themselves dealing with millions of angry peasants with torches and pitchforks in their hands.

Good thing for them someone popped Bhutto, isn't? What a lucky coincidence.

Alyssa - I think he could have found a way to get us into Iraq without Osama bin-Laden specifically. The arguments he gave were that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11 and that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Those arguments wouldn't have gone anywhere with bin-Laden dead. But I know what you're saying. The bin-Laden video tapes were excellent sources for propaganda. I'm just not sure they were crucial.

But then why keep it going for over 6 years? Why still release the tapes? He got us into Iraq...mission accomplished. What's he trying to do now?

Or to look at it another way, how would Bush be able to sell the 'Team America - World Police' idea to everyone if someone linked to the Pakistani Intelligence had sorted Osama out themselves thank you very much!

I always wondered why our governments always defend Musharraf as a stand up guy when we all know he's a jerk, all starts to make sense if he knows the same thing Bhutto did.

Thanks Jen, my name is setfree69, I appreciate you linking my video to your BLOG, I have to say, great work on your part. I have put a link as best I can on my youtube channel, as I think the research you have done on this subject is First Class.

I'm most appreciative of the research and posting of this information. For some additional resources, I'm posting two links:(1) Let Sibel Edmonds Speak - http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/Sibel Edmonds was a translator for the FBI immediately after 9/11 and has been a whistleblower ever since. The information contained there may help answer some of the questions you have posited here. (2) An article recently posted on TruthOut.org: What Is He Capable Of? The Presidential Psychology at the End of Days By John P Briggs, M.D. and JP Briggs II, Ph.D. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011008A.shtmlI've read their work before (excellent analysis of Dick Cheney and his psychology!). In terms of trying to understand Bush's motivations/reasons for keeping quiet about Bin Laden's death, put in the context of this article about his 'worldview' and his place in it, it all makes a lot more sense. Here's one quote from the article: "The central, secret conflict that consumes George W. Bush and motivates much of his action can be summed up in a few words: the desperate need to avoid, contain and disguise disabling fears about his competence and adequacy in a context where he expects to feel superior. Out of this core conflict have arisen his good and evil worldview, his lack of empathy, even cruelty, his competitiveness, his bullying, his inability to make a rational decision (despite styling himself "the decider"), his tendency for deception and self-deception, his proclivity for unconsciously sabotaging the success of his own projects." Personally, I think that calling attention to the fact of Bin Laden's death would, in Bush's perception, point directly to his personal failure to have actually accomplished that mission himself. I think it's also important to remember that there are no particularly rational explanations for the behavior of someone who is irrational...

setfree69 - thank you for your kind words and for providing a link to this site on the YouTube page containing this video. I really appreciate it. Also, thank you for putting this interview on the internet. Please be sure to keep the copy you have stored on your computer or on a disk or... wherever you have it. Rumor has it that these videos are mysteriously falling off of YouTube. It's up to us to make sure it stays available.

Nice to meet you. Thanks for stopping by.

Jazwoman - I just heard about Sibel Edmonds! My next post will address the accusations she is making against Marc Grossman. Thank you for the link!

I haven't read the truthout link you have provided yet (I have a busy day today), but I will. Sounds like you have found some fascinating information. Thank you for letting me know about what you have found. I hope you will continue to help me in the future.

Jen, thanks for your comments. Shortly after Bush took office I set about finding good sources of information, understanding immediately that the media here in the US was complicit in doing his bidding. Truthout.org is a real favorite, and Truthdig.com is another.

Some of my favorite writers are Chris Hedges, former war correspondent in many (!) places and author of "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" a truly insightful book about the seductiveness of wars and their perpetuation. I try to read everything of his I can get my hands on; Paul Krugman, economist, teaches at Princeton and writes for the NYT - has been taking Bush to task for 7 years and doing an excellent job of actually explaining the flaws/faults/ and sheer wrong-headedness of Bush's economic policies; Paul Rogat Loeb - local to Seattle where I am, has written two books (The Impossible Will Take a Little While and Soul of a Citizen) and also sends out a newsletter of his writings periodically;

And of course, the stalwarts - Wendell Berry, Bill Moyers, Barry Lopez, Rebecca Solnit - all writers whose work I turn to as ongoing sources of solace, hope and inspiration for times like these >;-)

Keep doing the work, but take care of your soul along the way!Namaste' fellow traveler,Julianne

I dont think this amounts to much. Have you guys ever thought that it may have been just a slip of toungue, she may have been trying to say Daniel Perl and said osama instead. All of us have made these mistakes when we are talking about one thing and thinking abotu another. Since she talked so matter of factly as if the interviewer knew about this fact.

yeah, gee, Daniel Pearl sounds a lot like Osama Bin Laden, why didn't we think of that...? Benazir Bhutto was educated at Harvard and Oxford. A quote from Wikipedia about her education: In December 1976 she was elected president of the Oxford Union, becoming the first Asian woman to head the prestigious debating society.

Somehow she doesn't strike me as someone who was given to misspeaking or confusing things... I feel relatively confident she was saying exactly what she meant to say.

I have a few responses. First, if you re-watch the video, look at her face closely. She was very conscious of what she was saying, in my opinion. But you are right - it definitely could have been a mistake. We don't know for sure because David Frost didn't ask a follow up question.

Second, David Frost is either a jackass for not asking a follow up question, or maybe (I'm stressing 'maybe') this is common knowledge in other parts of the world. How the hell would we know? Our media is totally sheltered except for the few international clips we can find on the internet.

Third, could it have been a mistake? Yes. But could it be true? I think from the information I found here, the answer is also 'yes'. And that's all I'm trying to say here. That what she claims is possible.

What I would like to see now is for a big-time journalist who takes his/her job seriously (like Daniel Pearl) to investigate what Benazir Bhutto said.

Julianne - in that Truthout article you suggested (and thank you, by the way), I notice that they said 3 ISI directors had to be expelled for being close to militant.

Bhutto said she feared 3 individuals were trying to kill her (even though she only described one in this interview). This article also only solidifies my belief that the one individual she was describing ("a key figure in security, a former military officer" with dealings with "Jaish a Mohammad, the band group of Maulana Azhar" and had dealings with Omar Sheik) is General Mahmood Ahmad.

Yet not a single mainstream media (not surprising) or large blog that I've read is actually naming him.

I wonder what the General is up to now. Julianne -since you seem to be following this story quite closely - if you come across that name in your reading, keep me in mind, ok? His name just seems to drop off the radar after he was removed from director of the ISI in October 2001, but I don't believe he just went quietly into retirement. And he had some pretty scary contacts in our own country...

From The Kashmir Telegraph (May, 2003) - "I.S.I: From Pakistan, with love"Quote: "But what would be of utmost importance and concern to the US is the latest “rehabilitation” of General Mahmood, in the form of a cushy corporate position as head of Fauji Fertilizer, the multi-billion rupees business corporation run by ex-army men."

Here's a link to the full article: http://www.kashmirtelegraph.com/0503/sat.htm

And, as to who "The Kashmir Telegraph" is:

The Kashmir Telegraph is the publication of Pune-based, not for profit, think-tank, Kashmir Bachao Andolan, launched with the objective of providing news, views and opinions on Kashmir in particular and Indian sub-continent in general.http://www.kashmirtelegraph.com/aboutus.htm

And from an advertising supplement to the NYT, dated today (1/20/08):http://www.nytimes.com/ads/global/pakistan/seventeen.html

I looked up the Board of Directors for Fauji Fertilizer and some of its affiliates - reads like a "Who's Who" of former Pakistani military & ISI... Apparently this is where they go to reap yet more millions of dollars when it's time for them to leave their military 'service.'

I really wish I was a real investigator because I'd love to get my hands on that fertilizer companies' financial records. General Mahmood having access and control over millions of dollars is bad news.

Also, doesn't the mob in New York have trash pick up and fertilizer companies? I don't know if that's related to anything, and I don't know much about the mob, but I'm fairly certain those type of industries serve as their cover businesses. Am I correct?

Thanks for your kind words, Jen. While I don't think of myself as an investigator per se, I am pretty handy at finding things - based on a lifetime of personal experience which has required it...

Also, I just realized when I had given you a list of folks whose stuff I rely on that I forgot (YIKES!) Greg Palast, an American reporter who works for the BBC since no one in America will touch his stuff... Here's a link to his website: http://www.gregpalast.com/ and you can subscribe to his emails (which are entertaining and superbly informative, although the humor is, admittedly, dark).

I'd say "enjoy," but we both know that's not really quite what it is, huh?

Ahh - Greg Palast! I'm already a big fan of his. I've read Armed Madhouse and I visit his site frequently. He also goes on the Randi Rhodes show pretty often, which is where I first heard of him when Congress actually cared about the 8 Attorneys who were fired for not being loyal Bushies.

Thanks though. I'm not the least bit surprised that you suggested him.

According to CNN.com, Benazir Bhutto was killed by a blast from an explosion; this is contrary to previous reports that say she was shot. A Scotland Yard analysis shows that there was no evidence of a bullet wound. Wow! Even in a high-profile murder such as this, the media can not get their facts straight!

Ryan- that's probably because the media is not trying to get their facts straight.

Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever know the truth about her assassination. I don't trust Scotland Yard. Omar Sheik, according to President Musharraf in his book, was and MI6 agent, which is the British intelligence agency. Sending the Brits in to investigate her death doesn't bode well with me.

The good news, if there is any, is that how she died is really of very little relevance. She was murdered - the details about what exactly made her heart stop don't matter nearly as much as who wanted her dead.

Thanks for the information though. If you find an interesting "dot" for me, be sure to let me know. I'll check out your blog to in a few days when life calms down for me a bit.

How do I save this video on my computer of Bhutto's insight of what happened? These things disappear rapidly on channels such as You Tube and Google etc.

In my opinion, it seems very UNlikely that this is NOT true....because *normally* the media is always eager to correct any "mistakes" or "tongue slips" and expand on it and/or clear the misunderstandings in anyway. However, this time they simply EDITED it out and hoped that most people did not catch onto Bhutto's "matter of fact" statement. She did *NOT* do a double take on her declaration nor did she apologize or repeat a "correct sentence" to clear the misunderstanding herself. She seemed VERY confident of what she said, and spoke as if she knew the REAL truth and insider information that is "top secret" and only known to government officials.

After all, there is a reason federal employees working for certain govt. agencies within the US have to have a "Security Clearance" to keep certain information confidential! If we ignore everything as rumor or speculation, and wait for our own government to make the "truth" available to the general public, there would be NO NEED for the government itself to have secret dealings and officials...vowed to keep silent. Some things we are not "meant" to know. When people mess up and give us clues.....they almost always are killed suddenly or mysteriously in a way that the world remains confused and uninformed of what really happened or occurred. Those "files" are closed pretty quickly and quietly....and it is made to seem an unimportant event.

It is very possible that Bhutto made this statement INTENTIONALLY to let the world know what was going on, all the while knowing that she was risking her life while doing it. She knew people were after her and suspected a threat or murder the DAY OF her assassination. Yet, she went out into the rally and took the risk to stand up for what she believed.

If you knew something that was considered "top secret" (even though there might be speculation out there...but not confirmed), and you KNOW that your life would be in danger *IF* you ever repeated it, you sure as hell are gonna be careful about what you say on TV...where millions of people can watch it INTERNATIONALLY! You're not gonna confess to something THIS BIG on int'l levels by "accident!"

This had to be intentional! She wanted the world to know what was going on or at least give them a clue to investigate all the secret dirty works that actually connects these governments! Especially, since she KNEW her life was in danger.......and if something ever were to happen (her odds of being alive were slim to none), she WANTED people to pick up her hint and investigate and EXPOSE the people behind all these secret dealings AND her "possible" murder!

No one is stupid enough to make such a life-threatening mistake on int'l media! Esp. not someone as HIGHLY EDUCATED and INTELLECTUAL as her!

Saving this video to your computer is a great idea, but I am not technologically savvy. Do me a favor though... when you find out, will you direct me to the instructions?

As for the way you feel about this interview, I'm having a tough time openly admitting it, but when I'm honest with myself, my reasoning tells me the truth looks a lot like your description. She was describing her assassin. She was being very careful about names. She also provided an incredibly effective link to direct us to that assassin, General Mahmood Ahmed (the former head of Musharraf's and Pakistan's intelligence agency ISI). I have a hard time believing that her statement was not deliberate.

It's just so devastating if it's true. It makes our fears about the state of our country all too true, and it's a tough pill to swallow.

It appears investigative journalism and editorial independence have fallen completely off the tracks in the U.S. mainstream media. But maybe I'm just misunderstanding what's going on here. Thanks for all the insights.

It's hard to see what Bhutto gained by this disclosure. Was it a message? If it was and was intended to benefit her then we know the result. But something to the power of 10 is not quite clear in all this. That seems at least part of the strategy, keep it turning this way and that so it seems there's no open and shut case. But for sure the world's been had and for nearly seven years. How deep does the 'had' go? Well.. Good work all round.Luminog

The article mentions that bin-Laden's funeral was held 10 days after the December 26 article was written. Then, it goes on to say he must have therefore died around the 16th. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the funeral typically take place at least a few days after someone dies? It's unlikely that the funeral ceremony took place on the same day he died.

Shorty - you know what... it does look like I phrased that wrong in my writing. Good catch. The Egyptian article though says that the source saw bin Laden's face "prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago", indicating he was dead 10 days earlier. It actually doesn't give the exact date of the funeral... it just says that it took place.

While I don't think it changes the point of the post, you are right. The funeral probably was not on the 16th. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure how many people in the US realize it, but a civil war has been going on in Pakistan for over six years between the government and the Pashtuns of Waziristan. We're told in the US that Pakistan is fighting Al Qaida, but the Pashtuns say it's really about an oil pipeline the US wants to build across their territories with the help and support of the Pakistani government.

My question would be then if Omar Saeed Sheikh is an ISI agent, could this have been the reason for the attacks on 9/11? This is not new because I've read this assertion before, but I want opinions about whether or not some strong sense of nationalism (or a lot of money) could have motivated this man to help fund and support such an operation to help the US gain access to the territory. (Obviously, our oil companies would build the pipeline or pay the Pakistanis to do it.)

Of course, Michael Moore suggested this in Farenheit 9/11, but no one could verify his claim. I believe there may be revenues at stake for the Pakistani government (or more likely for a select few who stand to become very rich), or it's even more likely they're complying with the US because we threatened to "bomb them back into the stone age." Whatever the reason, there are several pertinent vids on You Tube about a pipeline being built from the Caspian Basin and extending through Usbekistan, Turkmenistan, and south through Pakistan which means crossing the Pashtun territories known as Waziristan.

My favorite video about this is the second half of (Hijackers Alive!) in which a Republican named Carl Schwartz gives the whole story based on ongoing FBI investigations of drug trafficking in the region. His revelations are amazing! There are also Pashtun accounts of the same pipeline available on You Tube (though most of them need subtitles to be understood).

While I don't believe our government orchestrated the attacks on 9/11, I DO believe they took steps to make them much more effective so as to create the "New Pearl Harbor" that would give the US a foothold in the region. (Keep in mind the oil in the Caspian is valued at between 11 and 12 TRILLION dollars.) Any form of complicity means 9/11 was an inside job, of course. My interest here is in determining Omar Sheikh's motives.

So again, my question is could Omar Saeed Sheikh have been asked by his government to help orchestrate a scenario like 9/11 (in collusion with our government) so they could build an oil pipeline? (I apologize for the long comment, by the way.)

churchmn - good insight. although i dont think we'll ever know the 'real' cause of 9/11 (no, they didnt do it randomly just because they hate americans).....but this theory of yours could be a possibility. for trillions of dollars, i dont doubt that the US govt. could have somewhat of a hand into this situation. US was interested to go there and attach.....they just needed a motive. Whether they fueled the fire that caused terrorists to attack, or whether this was a top secret plan that maybe some govt. officials were involved in (if not all).....someone somewhere did something to cause 9/11....and as much as I love this country and feel sorry for the innocent lives lost, i dont think the US govt. is without fault.

whether the oil thing is true or not....i dont know. i dont claim to be an expert on such things. i've even heard that America is the one that gave birth to Osama bin Laden. he was their puppet to do all the dirty work. if u go to see, it makes perfect sense. he did for them watever was required, but when they no longer needed him and his assistance, they pretty much cut him loose. he felt angered and used and wanted revenge! plus, the years of skills and hiding/training grounds required to pull off such a massive terrorist organization and the weapons/supplies it takes to do it....these things dont just appear out of nowhere.

like i said.....somehow, somwehere US ignited this fire....but it backfired.... whether it be thru the oil plots or getting bit by the one they fed...

oh and Shorty, in certain places they actually do the funeral the same day as the death.....

i dont know about this case in general...the whole time frame of dates confuse me.....but i can tell u that certain sects do the funeral as soon as they can. i was raised in pakistan and even in my religion (non-muslim), if someone died at like 7am.....they would try and do a funeral b/w 12:00pm - 3:00pm......or soon as a priest is available.

so IF that happened in this case, thats not surprising.... in fact, im sometimes shocked at how long it takes Americans to carry out a funeral...sometimes a week to two weeks!

Once Obama gets into the White House, it would be great to see some serious investigation into this matter. The first step would be to get Saeed Sheikh out of Pakistan and into the US for some extensive question/interrogation.

Once Obama gets into the White House, it would be great to see some serious investigation into this matter. The first step would be to get Saeed Sheikh out of Pakistan and into the US for some extensive question/interrogation.

Not really, there is NOTHING in that video that has not been discussed from a year ago. If you check the 4000+ comments on the orgiginal the "debunker" Video has NOTHING new, just well collected info that has already been debunked!

"debunked"? All I see in the comments on the original video is people pointing out that she was interviewed after the Frost interview and she was talking about bin Laden in the context of him being alive. And then those comments get ignored. I certainly don't see them "debunked" or even discussed. Please think about what I am saying in my video.

It seems that the poster Representative Press has been asked to provide ACTULA evidence of the interview that he says took place AFTER the Frost interview. He has failed to provide any evidence!. The "PosterBoy" comment by Bhutto was made to the American PRess whilst she was still trying to gain support from the Americans which she realised was not forthcomming after the first assassination attempt. It seems she realised she had been "Set up" by the US and used the Frost interview to let it slip that Osama Bin Laden was dead, the fact that she mentioned his son Hamza Bin LAden would suggest that she believed Osama was dead or else why would his Son be in the frame to kill her!

I think Setfree69's Video still stands and has NOT been debunked. Take a look at the Poster of the Video, most of the people commenting there are ignored by him when they ask for questions to be answered.

Jenn Clark I salute you for your reasearch that coupled with Setfrees Video seems the final word on this matter.

It seems that the poster Representative Press has been asked to provide ACTULA evidence of the interview that he says took place AFTER the Frost interview. He has failed to provide any evidence!. The "PosterBoy" comment by Bhutto was made to the American PRess whilst she was still trying to gain support from the Americans which she realised was not forthcomming after the first assassination attempt. It seems she realised she had been "Set up" by the US and used the Frost interview to let it slip that Osama Bin Laden was dead, the fact that she mentioned his son Hamza Bin LAden would suggest that she believed Osama was dead or else why would his Son be in the frame to kill her!

I think Setfree69's Video still stands and has NOT been debunked. Take a look at the Poster of the Video, most of the people commenting there are ignored by him when they ask for questions to be answered.

Jenn Clark I salute you for your reasearch that coupled with Setfrees Video seems the final word on this matter.

I nelieve that osama is dead, people directing this drama are trying to hide the truth from the world, benazeer bhutto was a part of it too,, her interview with frost was just after the 1st attack on her rally at her arrival to pakistan after living outside of pakistan during musharaf's years long rule in pakistan. more than a million people welcomed her in this rally. But this rally was interrupted by this 1st attack on her, which took the lives of more than 200 people, moving close to the truck in which she and other leaders of her party were. This 1st attack on her changed her mind completely. And she gave many hot blooded interviews after this incident and ABOUT THIS INCIDENT. The Frost was asking question about this 1st attack and this made benazeer to talk beyond her diplomatic ways. And the truth came out. And i bet she would have been more happy that Mr.Frost didnt persue her statement more. Because she didnt want to talk more. And in the interviews following this one, she was back to her diplomatic ways, and carried on with the story that osama is still alive. And she also knew it that the interview was broadcasted on TV with "osama is Dead" portion being censored.

It's Brilliant post. I liked it. We are aware of the fact that there is no dearth of institutes in Surat which claims to provide PHP MySql training but there is not a single institute which can provide real world training. Acesoftech is part of suhanasoftech, a leading website design company having branches in Kolkata and Surat. We guarantee you 100% job-oriented courses. You will learn everything practical. You will also get training on how to get better and high paying jobs. 100% placement assistance provided. Learn PHP/ MySql from professional and be ahead of your competitors.

Though, I don't agree with the logic presented in regards to Benazir Bhutto’s interview.

I cannot possibly imagine how the name 'Daniel Pearl' could ever be confused with 'Osama Bin Laden'. No matter how many times a name is uttered a minute earlier. They couldn't be more different in every respect. Had she meant Hamza bin Laden instead, it would have been understandable. Bhutto seems too calm and focused to make such an error without even correcting herself seconds later.

Using the word 'murdered' to describe someone’s death depends on Bhutto's personal perspective on the man. Not everybody thought ‘Osama bin Laden’ to be a ruthless, blood thirsty terrorist. There are many who believe he was a freedom fighter or even a martyr, especially to those coming from the same region. It is possible, she could have even know him.

Proclaiming Osama bin Laden to be dead must carry a certain degree of responsibility especially if it was meant to be kept secret for various unknown political reasons. If it’s the case, then it is highly likely Bhutto would have later been severely reprimanded by the likes of ISI, or some similar entity, for dropping a “bombshell” without authorisation. She would have been cautioned and ordered to fix the problem she created by backtrack in her radio interview, making a subtle comment is passing which would suggest that he's still alive.

But most importantly, if the news was so “jaw dropping”, why didn't her highly experienced interviewer, David Frost, ask for clarification? He too must have been equally shocked.

Though, I don't agree with the logic presented in regards to Benazir Bhutto’s interview.

I cannot possibly imagine how the name 'Daniel Pearl' could ever be confused with 'Osama Bin Laden'. No matter how many times a name is uttered a minute earlier. They couldn't be more different in every respect. Had she meant Hamza bin Laden instead, it would have been understandable. Bhutto seems too calm and focused to make such an error without even correcting herself seconds later.

Using the word 'murdered' to describe someone’s death depends on Bhutto's personal perspective on the man. Not everybody thought ‘Osama bin Laden’ to be a ruthless, blood thirsty terrorist. There are many who believe he was a freedom fighter or even a martyr, especially to those coming from the same region. It is possible, she could have even know him.

Proclaiming Osama bin Laden to be dead must carry a certain degree of responsibility especially if it was meant to be kept secret for various unknown political reasons. If it’s the case, then it is highly likely Bhutto would have later been severely reprimanded by the likes of ISI, or some similar entity, for dropping a “bombshell” without authorisation. She would have been cautioned and ordered to fix the problem she created by backtracking in her radio interview, making a subtle comment in passing which would suggest that he's still alive.

But most importantly, if the news was so “jaw dropping”, why didn't her highly experienced interviewer, David Frost, ask for clarification? He too must have been equally shocked.

This has been a fascinating read which I've only just come across. Thanks Jen. My memory of the Benazir Bhutto assassination was that she hadstated to Frost that OBL had been murdered and that she would be holding a press conference where she would lay out all the evidence that she had available. I think the press conference had been scheduled to be the day that she was killed, or may have been the next day. I too am wondering how this all ties in with the recent alleged killing of OBL by US Navy Seals, and am trying to piece together a realistic obituary for my Facebook newspaper 'Proper Gander News and Views'.